A PROJECT OF THE ANNIE E. CASEY FOUNDATION 4 PATHWAYS TO JUVENILE DETENTION REFORM CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVES planning and implementing detention alternatives by Paul DeMuro
About the Author: Paul DeMuro, an experienced juvenile justice system administrator, is now a private consultant providing technical assistance on juvenile justice and child welfare issues to numerous state and local governments. He also serves as an expert in court cases involving conditions of confinement for youth. Additional free copies of this report may be ordered from: The Annie E. Casey Foundation 701 St. Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21202 410.547.6600 410.547.6624 fax www.aecf.org printed on recycled paper
TABLE OF CONTENTS Series Preface 4 Chapter 1 Why We Need Effective Alternatives to Detention 10 Chapter 2 Guiding Principles 11 Chapter 3 Program Models: Components of a Detention Continuum 15 Chapter 4 Special Populations 27 Chapter 5 Design and Implementation Issues 31 Chapter 6 Management Issues 38 Chapter 7 Getting Started 43 Resources 45 Titles in the Pathways Series 47
4 SERIES PREFACE Many years ago, Jim Casey, a founder and long-time CEO of the United Parcel Service, observed that his least prepared and least effective employees were those unfortunate individuals who, for various reasons, had spent much of their youth in institutions, or who had been passed through multiple foster care placements. When his success in business enabled him and his siblings to establish a philanthropy (named in honor of their mother, Annie E. Casey), Mr. Casey focused his charitable work on improving the circumstances of disadvantaged children, in particular by increasing their chances of being raised in stable, nurturing family settings. His insight about what kids need to become healthy, productive citizens helps to explain the Casey Foundation s historical commitment to juvenile justice reform. Over the past two decades, we have organized and funded a series of projects aimed at safely minimizing populations in juvenile correctional facilities through fairer, better informed system policies and practices and the use of effective community-based alternatives. In December 1992, the Annie E. Casey Foundation launched a multi-year, multi-site project known as the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI). JDAI s purpose was straightforward: to demonstrate that jurisdictions can establish more effective and efficient systems to accomplish the purposes of juvenile detention. The initiative was inspired by work that we had previously funded in Broward County, Florida, where an extremely crowded, dangerous, and costly detention operation had been radically transformed. Broward County s experience demonstrated that interagency collaboration and data-driven policies and programs could reduce the numbers of kids behind bars without sacrificing public safety or court appearance rates. Our decision to invest millions of dollars and vast amounts of staff time in JDAI was not solely the result of Broward County s successful pilot endeavors, however. It was also stimulated by data that revealed a rapidly emerging national crisis in juvenile detention. From 1985 to 1995, the number of youth held in secure detention nationwide increased by 72 percent (see Figure A). This increase
SERIES PREFACE 5 might be understandable if the youth in custody were primarily violent offenders for whom no reasonable alternative could be found. But other data (see Figure B) reveal that less than one-third of the youth in secure custody (in a one-day snapshot in 1995) were charged with violent acts. In fact, far more kids in this one-day count were held for status offenses (and related court order violations) and failures to comply with conditions of supervision than for dangerous delinquent behavior. Disturbingly, the increases in the numbers of juveniles held in secure detention facilities were severely disproportionate across races. In 1985, approximately 56 percent of youth in detention on a given day were white, while 44 percent were minority youth. By 1995, those numbers were reversed (see Figure C), a consequence of greatly increased detention rates for African-American and Hispanic youth over this 10-year period. 1 As juvenile detention utilization escalated nationally, crowded facilities became the norm rather than the exception. The number of facilities FIGURE A FIGURE A AVERAGE DAILY AVERAGE POPULATION DAILY POPULATION OF JUVENILES OF JUVENILES IN IN U.S. PUBLIC U.S. DETENTION PUBLIC DETENTION CENTERS, CENTERS, 1985-1995 1985-1995 FIGURE B ONE-DAY COUNTS IN DETENTION FACILITIES BY OFFENSE CATEGORY, 1995 FIGURE C 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 Source: Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional and Shelter Facilities, 1985-1995. Violent offenses 28.6% JUVENILES IN PUBLIC DETENTION CENTERS BY MINORITY STATUS, 1985-1995 white 56.6% 7,041 minority 43.4% 9,247 8,355 white 43.6% 1985 1995 Source: Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional and Shelter Facilities, 1985-1995. Property, drugs, public order, and other * 37.5% Status offenses and technical violations 33.9% *Examples of other include alcohol and technical violations. Source: Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional and Shelter Facilities, 1985-1995. minority 56.4%
6 SERIES PREFACE 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 FIGURE D FIGURE E operating above their rated capacities rose by 642 percent, from 24 to 178, between 1985 and 1995 (see Figure D), and the percentage of youth held in overcrowded detention centers rose from 20 percent to 62 percent during the same decade (see Figure E). In 1994, almost 320,000 juveniles entered overcrowded facilities compared to 61,000 a decade earlier. Crowding is not a housekeeping problem that simply requires facility administrators to put extra mattresses in day rooms when it s time for lights out. Years of research and court cases have concluded that overcrowding produces unsafe, unhealthy conditions for both detainees and staff. A recently published report by staff of the National Juvenile Detention Association and the Youth Law Center summarizes crowding s impact: NUMBER OF OVERCROWDED U.S. PUBLIC DETENTION CENTERS, 1985-1995 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 Source: Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional and Shelter Facilities, 1985 1995. PERCENTAGE OF JUVENILES IN OVERCROWDED U.S. PUBLIC DETENTION CENTERS, 1985-1995 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 Source: Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional and Shelter Facilities, 1985 1995. Crowding affects every aspect of institutional life, from the provision of basic services such as food and bathroom access to programming, recreation, and education. It stretches existing medical and mental health resources and, at the same time, produces more mental health and medical crises. Crowding places additional stress on the physical plant (heating, plumbing, air circulation) and makes it more difficult to maintain cleaning, laundry, and meal preparation. When staffing ratios fail to keep pace with population, the incidence of violence and suicidal behavior rises. In crowded facilities, staff invariably resort to increased control measures such as lockdowns and mechanical restraints. 2
SERIES PREFACE 7 Crowding also puts additional financial pressure on an already expensive public service. Operating costs for public detention centers more than doubled between 1985 and 1995, from $362 million to almost $820 million (see Figure F). Some of these increased operating expenses are no FIGURE F doubt due to emergencies, overtime, and other unbudgeted costs that result from crowding. $1,000,000 JDAI was developed as an alternative to these $900,000 trends, as a demonstration that jurisdictions could control their detention destinies. The initiative had four $800,000 objectives: to eliminate the inappropriate or unnecessary use of secure detention; to minimize failures to appear and the incidence of delinquent behavior; to redirect public finances from building new facility capacity to responsible alternative strategies; and to improve conditions in secure detention facilities. $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES IN U.S. PUBLIC DETENTION CENTERS, 1985-1995 To accomplish these objectives, participating sites pursued a set of strategies to change detention policies and practices. The first strategy was collaboration, the coming together of disparate juvenile justice system stakeholders and other potential partners (like schools, community groups, the mental health system) to confer, share information, develop system-wide policies, and to promote accountability. Collaboration was also essential for sites to build a consensus about the limited purposes of secure detention. Consistent with professional standards and most statutes, they agreed that secure detention should be used only to ensure that alleged delinquents appear in court at the proper times and to protect the community by minimizing serious delinquent acts while their cases are being processed. 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 Source: Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional and Shelter Facilities, 1985-1995. 1985 1995. Operating expenditures are not adjusted for inflation.
8 SERIES PREFACE Armed with a clearer sense of purpose, the sites then examined their systems operations, using objective data to clarify problems and dilemmas, and to suggest solutions. They changed how admissions decisions were made (to ensure that only high-risk youth were held), how cases were processed (particularly to reduce lengths of stay in secure detention), and created new alternatives to detention programs (so that the system had more options). Each site s detention facility was carefully inspected and deficiencies were corrected so that confined youth were held in constitutionally required conditions. Efforts to reduce disproportionate minority confinement, and to handle special detention cases (e.g., probation violations or warrants), were also undertaken. In practice, these reforms proved far more difficult to implement than they are now to write about. We began JDAI with five sites: Cook County, IL; Milwaukee County, WI; Multnomah County, OR; New York City; and Sacramento County, CA. Just about when implementation activities were to begin, a dramatic shift occurred in the nation s juvenile justice policy environment. High-profile cases, such as the killing of several tourists in Florida, coupled with reports of significantly increased juvenile violence, spurred both media coverage and new legislation antithetical to JDAI s notion that some youth might be inappropriately or unnecessarily detained. This shift in public opinion complicated matters in virtually all of the sites. Political will for the reform strategies diminished as candidates tried to prove they were tougher on juvenile crime than their opponents. Administrators became reluctant to introduce changes that might be perceived as soft on delinquents. Legislation was enacted that drove detention use up in several places. Still, most of the sites persevered. At the end of 1998, three of the original sites Cook, Multnomah, and Sacramento Counties remained JDAI participants. Each had implemented a complex array of detention system strategies. Each could claim that they had fundamentally transformed their system. Their experiences, in general, and the particular strategies that they implemented to make their detention systems smarter, fairer, more efficient, and more effective, offer a unique learning laboratory for policymakers and practitioners who want to improve this critical component of
SERIES PREFACE 9 the juvenile justice system. To capture their innovations and the lessons they learned, we have produced this series of publications Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform. The series includes 13 monographs, all but two of which cover a key component of detention reform. (As for the other two monographs, one is a journalist s account of the initiative, while the other describes Florida s efforts to replicate Broward County s reforms statewide.) A complete list of the titles in the Pathways series is provided at the end of this publication. By the end of 1999, JDAI s evaluators, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, will have completed their analyses of the project, including quantitative evidence that will clarify whether the sites reduced reliance on secure detention without increasing rearrest or failure-to-appear rates. Data already available, some of which was used by the authors of these monographs, indicate that they did, in spite of the harsh policy environment that drove detention utilization up nationally. For taking on these difficult challenges, and for sharing both their successes and their failures, the participants in the JDAI sites deserve sincere thanks. At a time when kids are often disproportionately blamed for many of society s problems, these individuals were willing to demonstrate that adults should and could make important changes in their own behavior to respond more effectively to juvenile crime. Bart Lubow Senior Associate and Initiative Manager The Annie E. Casey Foundation Notes 1 In 1985, white youth were detained at the rate of 45 per 100,000, while African-American and Hispanic rates were 114 and 73, respectively. By 1995, rates for whites had decreased by 13 percent, while the rates for African-Americans (180 percent increase) and Hispanics (140 percent increase) had skyrocketed. Wordes, Madeline and Sharon M. Jones. 1998. Trends in Juvenile Detention and Steps Toward Reform, Crime and Delinquency, 44(4):544-560. 2 Burrell, Sue, et. al., Crowding in Juvenile Detention Centers: A Problem-Solving Manual, National Juvenile Detention Association and Youth Law Center, Richmond, KY, prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (December 1998), at 5-6.
10 Chapter 1 WHY WE NEED EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION In many jurisdictions, judges and probation staff have only one of two options when faced with a youth who has been arrested and charged with an offense: they can either release the youth to his or her parents or another responsible adult or lock up the youth in a secure detention facility. Therefore, it seems like a fairly straightforward proposition: to relieve overcrowding in detention, juvenile justice leaders should create alternatives options to the secure facility to supervise youth whose cases are pending in juvenile court. The use of effective detention alternatives assures that youth who do not require secure care are supervised in less costly programs while the most serious offenders are appropriately supervised in a secure setting. Without access to effective alternative programs, system officials will frequently choose to lock up too many alleged delinquents. The need for a variety of options to supervise youth pending action of juvenile court may be a straightforward proposition; however, it is not necessarily a simple and easy one to implement. Many jurisdictions operate detention alternatives that primarily handle youth who would not have been detained in any event. Other jurisdictions have programs that perform badly, often producing unintended consequences that may have serious impact on overall use of secure detention. If alternatives are not carefully designed and implemented, they will not reduce a jurisdiction s use of the secure facility. If the alternatives do not provide sufficient levels of supervision, they will not be widely accepted in a jurisdiction. This report presents the experiences of and lessons learned by the JDAI sites regarding the development of effective alternatives to secure detention. Each site expanded or enhanced its program repertoire as part of its detention system reform efforts. Some sites built an entirely new continuum; others filled key programmatic gaps. Taken together, their experiences help to clarify ways to plan, implement, and monitor effective alternatives to detention.
11 Chapter 2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES Seven fundamental principles emerge from the experiences of JDAI jurisdictions in developing effective detention alternatives. These principles can help shape and guide a jurisdiction s practice. 1. Detention should be viewed as a legal status, with varying levels of custody supervision, rather than as a building. In most jurisdictions, when people talk about juvenile detention they mean the secure facility itself. Even if the discussion is explicitly about a youth s legal status, detention is generally equated with being locked up. In practice, however, effective system reforms are more likely and non-secure alternatives will be better designed and implemented if policymakers and practitioners start to think of detention as a continuum of options ranging from secure custody to various types and levels of non-custodial supervision like home confinement or day reporting. From this vantage point, the narrow options for handling newly arrested delinquents common to most systems (i.e., secure custody versus outright release) can be expanded through the implementation of new programs, such as those described in this monograph. Then, youth will be more likely to end up in detention options consistent with the risks they pose, rather than being securely detained simply because no alternatives to the locked facility are available. 2. For alternatives to detention to be effective, agreement is needed on the purpose of secure detention and of alternatives. It is an unfortunate truism: The creation of detention alternatives does not always reduce a jurisdiction s use of secure detention. Before planning and developing alternatives, the leadership of a jurisdiction needs to define and agree upon the purposes of secure detention and of non-secure alternatives to it. Without such agreement, the creation of alternatives may widen the net, or lead to inappropriate interventions. For pre-adjudicated youth, secure detention should be used to ensure the youth s appearance at subsequent court hearings and/or to minimize the likelihood of serious new offenses.
12 GUIDING PRINCIPLES Pre-trial alternatives to detention, therefore, are not meant to punish youth or to provide treatment. 3. Detention alternatives should be planned, implemented, managed, and monitored using accurate data. Before designing an alternative program, a jurisdiction needs to understand what types of alleged delinquents are being held in secure detention and for how long. These data will help determine how many youth are being held for probation violations, as courtesy holds, as placement failures, or for short-term sentences. Answers to these questions should suggest programmatic solutions. For example, if a large number of secure beds are filled with probation violators, the types of programs needed will be different than if the target population is largely pre-adjudicated youth. Once implemented, detention alternatives should be monitored using objective data to track and analyze (1) the numbers and types of youth placed in the programs, (2) whether the program is displacing youth from the secure facility, and (3) how well the juveniles perform while in the alternative. 4. A reformed detention system should include a continuum of detention alternatives, with various programs and degrees of supervision matched to the risks of detained youth. Detention alternatives should offer a variety of levels of supervision to youth awaiting adjudication. A typical detention continuum will include, at a minimum, home confinement or community supervision; day or evening reporting centers for youth who lack structured daily activities; and non-secure shelter for youth who need 24-hour supervision, or as in some jurisdictions, for youth without a home to return to. Placement in the continuum should be based upon an individualized assessment of each youth s potential danger to the community and likelihood of flight. Effective continuums allow for youth to be moved to more- or less-restrictive settings as a function of their program performance. The development of alternative programs is a process. I can remember when the light bulb went on for myself...i mean I realized that we were talking about graduating somebody up and maybe graduating them down based on performance, and that we had to develop alternative programs to fill in the missing slots
13 that we had in our continuum. John Rhoads, Chief Probation Officer, Santa Cruz County, former Deputy Chief Probation Officer, Sacramento County 5. Detention alternatives should be culturally competent, relevant, and accessible to the youth they serve. Alternative programs should be culturally relevant and reflective of the youth who will be referred to them. In many urban jurisdictions, children of color constitute the majority of youth placed in secure detention. Effective alternative detention programs should be staffed by people who can best relate to these youth. Whenever possible, programs should be located in the neighborhoods from which the youth come, both for ease of participation and because community context is important to program outcomes. In addition, the special needs of girls should be considered when designing alternative programs. 6. Detention alternatives should be designed and operated on the principle of using the least restrictive alternative possible. Appropriate supervision can be provided while a youth is living at home, attending a day or evening reporting center, or living in an alternative residential placement. The degree of supervision imposed in each case should depend on the assessment of a youth s potential danger to the community and risk that he or she will fail to appear in court. Designing detention alternatives this way encourages a jurisdiction to (1) match the degree of restriction to the risks posed by the youth, (2) increase or decrease restrictiveness according to the youth s performance, and (3) ensure cost-efficiency by reserving costly secure detention beds for youth who represent the greatest risk to public safety. 7. Detention alternatives should reduce secure detention and avoid widening the net. The creation of detention alternatives should not inadvertently place more youth under detention supervision and into secure detention than was the case before the change. Widening the net frequently occurs in three ways. First, some youth are placed in alternatives as a diversionary tool or for treatment reasons. This can easily occur if the detention alternative is seen primarily as offering needed services (counseling, tutoring, recreation) to youth and not as offering primarily enhanced community supervision. Second, the net may widen if less seri-
14 GUIDING PRINCIPLES ous offenders (youth who would not have been considered for secure detention) are placed into alternative programs because screening criteria are too loose. And third, youth correctly placed in an alternative detention program may be frequently cited for minor transgressions, then placed in secure custody, even when other less restrictive corrective actions would work. Some detention alternatives seem designed to catch a youth doing something wrong (e.g., missing a curfew or an appointment). An alternative detention program s primary objective is not to catch youth in minor infractions. This approach can have the effect of putting more youth into secure detention. Instead, detention alternatives should seek to maximize youth s success while in non-secure alternatives by developing a range of responses to minor disciplinary problems.
15 Chapter 3 PROGRAM MODELS: COMPONENTS OF A DETENTION CONTINUUM Acontinuum of detention alternatives generally includes three basic program models for youth held in secure detention prior to a disposition hearing: (1) home or community detention (non-residential, non-facility-based supervision), (2) day or evening reporting centers (non-residential, facility-based supervision), and (3) shelter or foster care (non-secure residential placement). Within each model can be a range of degrees or levels of supervision. Across the country and within the JDAI sites, a number of program models have proven effective as alternatives to secure detention. While specific examples of successful programs should be examined by those interested in implementing new alternatives, it is important for localities to tailor programs to the communities where they will be located. A. Home or Community Detention The JDAI sites use home or community detention alternative programs to supervise youth who can safely reside in their own homes or with relatives. Home detention programs have proven to be cost-effective, efficient alternatives to secure detention. Their remarkable success rates and low cost have made these programs popular throughout America: in a well-managed system, it is not unusual for 90 percent to 95 percent of youth assigned to a home detention program to make all their court hearings while remaining arrest-free. Started in the late 1970s, home detention programs have grown rapidly in number, succeeding in both rural and urban environments. Home detention programs can be run directly by public employees or through a contract with a community-based nonprofit agency. The success of home detention rests in its straightforwardness. Home detention staff provide frequent, random, unannounced, face-to-face community supervision (and telephone contacts) to minimize the chances that youth are engaged in ongoing delinquent behavior and to ensure court appearance. Staff caseloads for home detention programs are kept low to ensure effective supervision.
16 PROGRAM MODELS: COMPONENTS OF A DETENTION CONTINUUM Home detention programs in JDAI sites are designed so that staff may increase (or decrease) the intensity of supervision and contact time based upon a youth s behavior. When a youth violates a condition of home detention, he or she need not automatically be returned to secure detention. Staff can first consider increasing the level of supervision. Of course, continued failure to comply with the rules and conditions of home detention may result in return to the secure detention center. In Cook County, for example, a youth is liable to be returned to secure detention if he or she is not available on three occasions when the probation staff do a home visit. Home detention programs vary in practice from site to site, but generally require youth to observe a tight curfew (e.g., 6:00 PM weekdays) and limit movement outside the home to pre-approved activities, locations, and times (e.g., school and church). Multnomah s home detention program (which is known locally as community detention ) combines the efforts of probation staff and a not-for-profit private agency. The Multnomah program starts all youth at the same contact levels, but alters supervision levels weekly as a function of compliance with program requirements. After a successful period, a youth s curfew may be eased, and/or with the permission of the staff, he or she might be allowed to attend a special activity. The Multnomah community detention program uses hourly workers from a private agency (Volunteers of America) who are familiar with the youth s neighborhood to provide face-to-face supervision. The Probation Department runs a related compliance unit that handles all the phone-in requirements of the program. Table 1 summarizes contact requirements for this program; Figure 1 summarizes how TABLE 1 MULTNOMAH COUNTY COMMUNITY DETENTION CONTACT REQUIREMENTS Level Phone Calls from Youth Visits with Monitors Week 1 4 calls per day 2 face-to-face daily; Entry Level (28 per week) 2 face-to-face curfew checks a week; 5 curfew phone checks Week 2 3 calls per day 1 face-to-face daily; Mid-range (21 per week) 2 curfew checks a week Week 3 2 calls per day 3 face-to-face contacts weekly Mid-range (14 calls per week) Week 4 1 call per day 2 face-to-face contacts Exit Level (7 per week) weekly
17 compliance (or non-compliance) affects FIGURE 1 movement of youth from one level of restrictiveness to another. Youth achieved 75% or Sacramento County s home supervision better on performance YES criteria at current level. program is operated exclusively by the probation department, which deploys teams of officers to conduct unannounced home and NO school visits, to make collateral contacts, and to install electronic monitoring devices when Youth achieved 65% to 74% on performance YES ordered. Sacramento s is a high-volume program, supervising approximately 160 youth criteria at current level. daily. Average daily costs for supervision is NO approximately $16 per youth. In Cook County s home confinement Youth achieved 55% to program, probation staff provide the direct 64% on performance YES face-to-face supervision and collateral contacts and also handle all the phone work. criteria at current level. Another type of in-home detention program depends on a contracted, community- NO based, not-for-profit agency that hires an Youth achieved less than advocate or a community supervisor to 54% on performance YES criteria at current level. supervise a youth for 15 to 30 hours each week in the community. The advocates provide supervision and support to the youth both in the home and within a community context. Advocate staff work intensively with youth in the community, generally supervising no more than four youth at any one time. Although no JDAI site adopted this approach to home detention, the community advocate model of home detention has operated successfully in Philadelphia for a number of years. Community advocates make home visits, collateral contacts, and telephone calls to check on a youth s adherence to a curfew, but they also spend a great deal of direct time with youth in the community after school and in the evenings. Staff participate MULTNOMAH COUNTY COMMUNITY DETENTION COMPLIANCE STANDARDS Move down a level in supervision. Remain at current supervision level. Community Detention Compliance Review. Judicial Review Hearing.
18 PROGRAM MODELS: COMPONENTS OF A DETENTION CONTINUUM COOK COUNTY HOME CONFINEMENT PROGRAM with the youth in educational and recreational activities, help youth find jobs, and assure that a youth and his or her family attend all court dates. The number of hours an advocate supervises a youth in the community can be adjusted based on the youth s risk. Advocates typically live in the same neighborhood and share ethnic and racial backgrounds with the youth they supervise. In-home detention programs may be supplemented by other supporting mechanisms. Many programs use a written agreement or contract with the youth and his or her parents to establish clear behavioral expectations. These contracts clarify curfew hours, places where the youth may or may not go, and expectations for school attendance or employment. The responsibilities of the parents to cooperate with the home detention program are similarly defined. Electronic monitoring is also often used with home detention programs. In some JDAI sites, use of this technology is typically restricted to one of two situations: (1) as a more restrictive option for youth who have failed to comply with standard program rules, and (2) as a means to release youth who might not otherwise meet routine program eligibility criteria. Electronic monitoring has become the first-choice alternative to detention programs in many jurisdictions nationally. At least two unanticipated (but related) consequences result from this unfettered use. First, face-to-face contacts between youth and monitoring staff diminish. Second, violations of electronic monitoring typically result in secure confinement, since no more restrictive option is available to the staff. The JDAI site experiences, therefore, emphasize that electronic mon- Staff: Two-member teams of probation officers, each team responsible for 25 cases. Program elements: 1. At least three weekly face-to-face contacts in youth s home, generally in late afternoon and evenings on weekdays and weekends. Random telephone contacts. 2. Youth restricted to home except for school and church attendance and other activities approved by probation staff. 3. Collateral contacts to check on school attendance and other activities. 4. Program supervision can be enhanced with electronic monitoring. Eligibility criteria: Secure-detention-eligible youths with no more than one outstanding juvenile arrest warrant; willing and cooperative parent; no previous failures on home confinement. Length of stay in program: 30-45 days. Cost: $10 per day. Program capacity: 225 youths. Average daily population: 180-200 youths. Successful completion rate: 91% of participants remain arrest-free and make their court hearings during their time in the program.
19 itoring should be used to enhance, not replace, face-to-face supervision, and primarily for cases that present higher risks to public safety. PHILADELPHIA YOUTH ADVOCATE PROGRAM Staff: Not-for-profit, private agency screens, hires, and trains community residents who provide intensive, individualized supervision to no more than four youth at a time. Advocates are supervised by full-time professional staff. Program elements: 1. 15 to 30 hours of face-to-face supervision in community, depending on risks and needs of specific youth. 2. Youth are referred to recreational, educational, and vocational opportunities in the community. 3. Daily checks on school attendance and curfews. 4. Supervision can be enhanced with electronic monitoring in selected cases. 5. Staff accompany youth to all court appearances. B. Day and Evening Reporting Centers Each of the JDAI sites implemented another type of non-residential detention alternative generally known as day reporting. These are non-secure community programs that provide six to 12 hours of daily supervision and structured activities for youth who require more intensive oversight than an in-home program can provide. Youth in these programs are often not enrolled in school at the time of their release from detention, making routine monitoring difficult and leaving the youth with too much unfilled time. In some jurisdictions, such as Broward County, Florida, day reporting is used in conjunction with non-secure residential placements. In this example, youth participate in educational and recreational programming at the day reporting center that could not be offered at their group home. Reporting centers offer several key benefits. The cost for supervision of youth in these programs is far less than in a secure setting. At the same time, the community is protected by the center s intensive daily supervision of each youth. Particularly high-risk youngsters may also be monitored with an electronic device. Generally, youth remain in a reporting program for at least 30 days, or until their case is disposed. Cook County modified this program model by creating a system of evening reporting centers that provide structure and supervision to youth during the high-crime after-school and evening hours from 3:00 to 9:00 PM. After determining that many youth were returned to secure detention as probation violators, Cook County developed the evening reporting centers as an alternative sanction. Eligibility criteria: Secure-detention-eligible youths referred by court. Cost: Depends upon amount of court-ordered weekly supervision. 15 hours per week costs approximately $225; 30 hours, approximately $325. Successful completion rate: 92% of youths made their court hearings and remained arrest-free while in the program.
20 PROGRAM MODELS: COMPONENTS OF A DETENTION CONTINUUM COOK COUNTY EVENING REPORTING CENTERS (The centers also serve some youth who are in a pre-adjudication status.) Located in high-referral neighborhoods, Cook County s evening reporting centers are run by non-profit, community-based providers who have experience and expertise dealing with the problems of their neighborhood s youth. The community-based agency hires, trains, and supervises local staff who provide intensive, individualized supervision to no more than 25 youths per site. The Cook County evening reporting centers have been successful at diverting youth from secure detention. In a recent statistical report on Cook s alternative to detention programs, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency analyzed 183 cases admitted to the evening reporting centers in 1997 and concluded that over 60 percent would have been admitted to secure detention if the evening reporting center program were not in place. Based upon its success at diverting cases from secure confinement, as well as the programs impressive completion rates, Cook County has now established a network of five evening reporting centers (in geographical areas of the county with high VOP rates) and anticipates replication in still other neighborhoods. Quite often the most troublesome operational obstacles for day or evening reporting centers develop when administrators or court personnel fail to distinguish between day reporting and day treatment. The day or evening reporting center model is an alternative to detention program designed to provide intensive supervision to youth who would normally be held in secure pretrial custody. The goal is to ensure that youth return to court for their scheduled court date with no new law violations. In contrast, day treat- Staff: Operated by non-profit, community-based service organizations that hire and train staff primarily from the neighborhood; centers maintain a ratio of one staff to five youth. Program elements: 1. Six hours of daily supervision, tutoring, counseling, and recreation. 2. Curfew checks. 3. Evening meals and transportation home. 4. Youths are referred for additional recreational, educational, and vocational opportunities in the community. 5. Work with families. 6. Collateral checks on school attendance and school work. 7. Program supervision can be enhanced by linking participants to home confinement program and/or electronic monitoring. Eligibility criteria: Secure-detention-eligible youths; chronic VOPs. Length of stay in program: 21-30 days. Cost: Approximately $33 per youth per day. Successful completion rate: 90% of youth make their court hearings and remain arrest-free while in the program.
21 ment programs offer an array of clinical interventions aimed at accomplishing more comprehensive behavioral change. The latter model is generally relevant only for post-dispositional caseloads. Applying day treatment program expectations to day reporting programs can have negative consequences. For example, youth who comply with day reporting program requirements, but who are (inappropriately) expected to demonstrate changes in attitude, demeanor, self-control, etc., may be unnecessarily violated even though they attend the program, appear in court, and remain arrest-free. C. Residential Alternatives The JDAI sites developed a variety of residential alternatives either for youth who needed 24-hour residential supervision to be considered for release from secure detention, or for youth who had no suitable home or relative placement available. Perhaps the more typical residential alternative is a shelter program. 1 A shelter is a non-secure residential facility staffed to provide time-limited housing for a youth as an alternative to secure detention. Youth are typically supervised by staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Although shelter programs may have some hardware (locks on the doors and windows), shelter care depends on close staff supervision. In New York City s non-secure detention (NSD) residential alternatives, a minimum direct staffing ratio of one staff per six youth must be maintained for each shift, in addition to an on-site director and case manager. Non-secure residential alternative programs provide normal age-specific services: education, recreation, tutoring, and life skills training. Staff generally work shifts. Much as in a hospital emergency room or a secure detention facility, the staff must report to work even when the shelter s population is low. Most shelters also have a trained cadre of part-time employees to supplement the regular staff during times of high census or staff illness or vacation. Experience indicates that it is preferable for staff to reflect the gender and ethnic diversity of the shelter s population. In the JDAI sites, shelters are used for two types of youth. For the past 20 years, New York has used NSD residential programs to provide 24-hour intensive supervision to higher-risk youth who need it in order to be released from secure detention.
22 PROGRAM MODELS: COMPONENTS OF A DETENTION CONTINUUM In New York, the highly structured NSD program is considered the most restrictive detention alternative within the detention continuum. Cook, Multnomah, and Sacramento Counties, however, generally use non-secure residential alternatives for lower-risk youth for whom no parent, immediate family member, or extended family member has been identified or is available. Absent these alternatives the youth were typically admitted to the secure detention center. Before JDAI, Cook County, with one of the largest secure detention facilities in the nation, was without a single shelter bed for delinquent youth. Data analyses revealed that on any given day, 20 to 25 youth were held in secure detention for whom release had been authorized by judges but for whom no parent or relative could be located. Most of these youth were low-risk cases. Relying on this information, Cook County developed a contract with a not-for-profit community-based agency to run a short-term residential shelter. Eventually Cook County began to use the shelter for placement cases awaiting a slot in a non-secure residential treatment alternative. The county recently developed a separate shelter for low-risk girls. JDAI sites work to ensure that their non-secure residential alternatives are not used as long-term placement options; length of stay in shelter typically does not exceed 30 days. Youth in shelter placement are scheduled for court hearings within the same time frames as youth in secure detention. Length of stay in shelters is considerably shorter for low-risk cases. For example, Cook County probation staff work to locate family members and release youth to a responsible relative within a few days of shelter placement. Effective shelter alternatives establish a strong internal program so youth experience consistent and structured activities, typically including both educational and recreational activities. Some non-secure residential alternatives provide an educational program within the shelter itself; in others, youth attend public schools. While it is not necessary or common for a shelter to have an on-site medical clinic, shelter programs do take care of emergency medical situations. Shelter facilities need to comply with applicable state or local licensing standards. Both Cook County and New York City have kept their shelter care pro-
23 grams relatively small (8-20 MANUEL SAURA CENTER, COOK COUNTY beds per residence). Larger shelter care programs are difficult to run. Some jurisdictions meet shelter care needs by contracting for beds in various group homes. For example, rather than developing separate shelter care programs for pre-adjudicatory youth, Sacramento Capacity: 20 beds. County expanded contracts with existing group care providers in order to reserve Cost: Approximately $90 per youth per day. a number of shelter care slots for youths who need timelimited residential supervision. These arrangements can be fiscally and administratively convenient because they avoid heavy capital costs required for program start-up and avoid the dilemmas associated with siting new programs. However, many jurisdictions find that mixing pre-trial youth into a group home with a different original mission and client population does not work well. Such programs may be unfamiliar with the challenges posed by delinquent youth or the expectations of the courts. As a result, youth may fail at higher rates simply because their jurisdiction s shelter care programming has been inadequately planned and developed. Staff: Operated by a not-for-profit community-based agency that hires and trains professional and non-professional staff. Program is located in a converted six-flat apartment building in a Chicago neighborhood. Target populations: (1) Youth identified by the risk assessment instrument as suitable for residential alternative, (2) youth designated by judicial order as RUR (release upon request), and (3) post-dispositional youth within 30 days of being placed in a residential treatment center. Program elements: 1) 24-hour residential supervision. 2) Educational instruction. 3) Independent living skills. 4) Individual and group counseling. 5) Transportation to court and to other required appointments. 6) Probation outreach to arrange return to parental (or other relative) custody. Length of stay in program: 1-10 days for pre-adjudicated cases; up to 30 days for youth awaiting placement. Successful completion rate: 96% make all court appearances and remain crime-free while in program. D. Foster Care As a supplement to the non-secure residential program, a jurisdiction may want to follow the example of Multnomah County and contract for host homes or foster care slots for younger children, girls, lower-risk cases, or other youth who may not be suitable for placement in a congregate care facility. Multnomah contracts with the Boys and Girls Aid Society, a private child care agency, for individualized host
24 PROGRAM MODELS: COMPONENTS OF A DETENTION CONTINUUM home slots, paying on an as-used basis. Usually youth stay in the host home for a few days while probation finds a more permanent arrangement; most youth are returned home or to a relative. As a general rule, younger children are not well served in a congregate care setting. Their developmental needs can best be met in a host home or foster home, particularly a home located in the same neighborhood and one that reflects the children s ethnic and racial background. Foster parents receive specialized training about youth referred by the juvenile justice system. They also have access to appropriate staff resources (e.g., probation) in order to help defuse potential crises and to provide respite care. E. Costs of Alternatives Operating costs for secure detention varies enormously throughout the country. However, it is not uncommon for well-staffed, well-maintained facilities to average $150 to $200 per bed per day. Operating and construction costs, including debt service, for one new secure detention bed for a 20-year period can easily approach $1.25 million. Clearly, alternative programs are far less costly than secure beds. Of course, the comparative cost-effectiveness of secure beds versus alternative options depends on the degree to which the alternative programs actually displace youth from secure beds. The average cost of alternative-to-detention programs also varies with the local job market. Table 2 presents the approximate average costs of alternative Per Diem Costs programs on a per diem basis in JDAI sites. TABLE 2 AVERAGE DAILY COST OF ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS IN JDAI SITES Program Type Home confinement/house arrest $10 Electronic monitoring (not including staffing) $6-10 Electronic monitoring (including staffing) $15-30 Community-based advocate supervision $30-44 Evening reporting center $32-35 Non-secure residential $90-130 F. Advocacy and Intensive Case Management In addition to the detention alternative program models mentioned above, a new approach to reducing detention populations that combines case advocacy and intensive case management has been pioneered by the nonprofit Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) in San Francisco and the District of
25 Columbia. Research has shown that even the most well-intentioned innovations are ineffective when they are simply absorbed into existing organizational practices. To ensure that the program serves as a true alternative to detention, CJCJ employs a deep end strategy targeting youths who have histories of multiple system contacts and are likely to be detained pending their adjudication. The program s two components are: Case Advocacy. Upon a referral from judges, court staff, defense attorneys, prosecutors, parents, or community-based service providers, a CJCJ case manager initiates an interview with the youth. If the youth agrees to participate, an individualized case plan is developed. The case plan is a detailed report that describes the specific conditions and outcomes that the youth promises to fulfill in exchange for release from custody. Case plans typically include provisions for attending school, family intervention/counseling, drug treatment, recreation activities, tutoring, and vocational training. Upon its completion, the case plan is presented to the court or appropriate court personnel by a CJCJ case manager. If the court or its designated agent agrees with the case plan (which occurs in 85 percent of cases), the youth is released to CJCJ s custody. Intensive Case Management. The purpose of intensive case management is to promote community adjustment by monitoring compliance and providing support to assist youths to overcome adversities and patterns that lead to recidivism and/or failure to appear. An effective intensive case management component involves multiple daily contacts. The following is a typical list of daily contacts by CJCJ case managers: Week One Three daily face-to-face contacts Week Two Two daily face-to-face contacts Weeks Three through Six One daily face-to-face contact Weeks Six through Twelve Three weekly face-to-face contacts CJCJ case managers carry pagers and respond to crisis calls on a 24-hour basis. For youths requiring highly intensive service, designated CJCJ case managers may maintain case load ratios of 5:1. The maximum case load is a 10:1 ratio. In some